So what are the various scenarios available to us?

[AnneGuedes]

Notice how he lies and changes the date from the 3rd to the 2nd to make it seem that it was the very next morning after what Mrs Fenn heard -  when Madeleine asked the question - when actually it was 2 days later.

He also deliberately leaves out Sean's name when he relates what Madeleine said - to make it fit in with Mrs. Fenn hearing only ONE child crying and not two as Madeleine claimed.

...if he can tell such porkies as that - then no quotes from his book can be taken as reliable...

Don't you see, Benice, that when the McCanns say Madeleine said, it is hearsay ? Inspector Amaral isn't lying, he just guesses that if Mrs Fenn heard a child crying on the 1st and if Rachael M (on the other side of the MC children bedroom wall) heard no child crying on the 2nd, then very likely Madeleine cried on the first.

[Jazzy]

Its ok I understand you believe kate mccann 100%


your prerogative but doesnt  mean anything fact wise in any way shape or form and no scrutinising of what she wrote by publishers or laywers who know diddly  squat can  ever deter from the fact that she did write untruths

Oh and btw jt DID finger murat! She says as much in her rogatory

Fact is, neither of the Mccanns are under arrest, evidence, as opposed to online [ censored word ]s accusations is still absent after 6 years. Libelling them really doesn't hack it, armchair detecting will never solve it. Legally the Mccanns are innocent, factaually so.

[AnneGuedes]

That is a fair point

If one child was crying,  increasingly distressed and calling out,  it is almost inevitable that the other two children in the same room would be wakened and start crying too

If they were in the same room. No 3/4 years old would remain in bed crying for 45 minutes, but would get out of bed and look for adults, unless paralysed or broken leg or whatever.

[stephen25000]

I just don't understand why certain people are trying so hard to pretend that no such person or people exist when we know only too well that they do.

Well said Eleanor; my feelings exactly

There is no need to pretend.

There is no proof of an abductor, unless of course you believe lizards from the second planet orbiting Beta Centuari have taken over the world.

Just provide clear clinical facts with bona fide evidence.

[icabodcrane]

If they were in the same room. No 3/4 years old would remain in bed crying for 45 minutes, but would get out of bed and look for adults, unless paralysed or broken leg or whatever.

I hadn't thought of that  ...  I suppose it is possible that Madeleine got out of bed and was crying elsewhere in the apartment   (  and so may not have woken the twins )   

The crying went on for an hour and a quarter,  by the way,  not 45 minutes

[Redblossom]

Fact is, neither of the Mccanns are under arrest, evidence, as opposed to online p......s accusations is still absent after 6 years. Libelling them really doesn't hack it, armchair detecting will never solve it. Legally the Mccanns are innocent, factaually so.

No legally they are not innocent or guilty, try to understand if you can  jazz it requires a court to determine this, they are former suspects released without charge

[AnneGuedes]

As for Kates book then I am absolutely positive that it was scrutinised to the Nth degree before going to publication to make sure that there was nothing in it which could be proved to be an untrue statement by Kate

How was that achieved, Benice ? Who detains the truth and is able to evaluate the veracity of Mrs McCann's statements ?
Are you absolutely positive because you work for this editor, Benice ?

[AnneGuedes]

No legally they are not innocent, try to understand if youcan jazz

Innocent or not, who cares ? The issue is Madeleine.

[Benice]

Its ok I understand you believe kate mccann 100%


your prerogative but doesnt  mean anything fact wise in any way shape or form and no scrutinising of what she wrote by publishers or laywers who know diddly  squat can  ever deter from the fact that she did write untruths

Oh and btw jt DID finger murat! She says as much in her rogatory

No that's not strictly true Red.  I do not believe the McCanns or their friends ever deliberately lied, but I do think that some of their recollections may not have been totally accurate - because few people have perfect recall - especially about things which seemed unimportant at the time, and which they had no idea they were going to be asked to recall at a later date.

If JT had formally identified Robert Murat, the first thing that would have happened was that she would have been immediately taken to the police station - at the speed of light - to make a signed witness statement to that effect.  Because that (i.e. a positive identification of Murat as the abductor)  would have been the most important evidence that Amaral had against him.      That did not happen, she was told she didn't need to sign anything and sent home.   There is no witness statement, let alone a formal one, and if there was it would feature prominently in the AG's Final Statement where he gives the reasons why Murat was made an arguido - and it doesn't.

JT Tanner said that she could not see Murat clearly enough to even recognise him as the the man she'd bumped into half an hour previously - let alone the man she saw abducting Madeleine.  The only reason why she was told she didn't have to go in to sign anything was because she had NOT positively identified Murat as the abductor - and a statement confirming that fact was of no use to Amaral.     
 

[AnneGuedes]

I hadn't thought of that  ...  I suppose it is possible that Madeleine got out of bed and was crying elsewhere in the apartment   (  and so may not have woken the twins )   

The crying went on for an hour and a quarter,  by the way,  not 45 minutes

Yes, 75 minutes, it seems incredibly long, moreover when you can't help it, poor Mrs Fenn.
A reconstruction with a crying child on a tape would have been useful to determine up to what point the TP4 who were supposed to check on their kids could hear it or not.
We know that as soon as a sibling was crying or making noises, Madeleine took advantage of it to go to her parents' bedroom.

[AnneGuedes]

The only reason why she was told she didn't have to go in to sign anything was because she had NOT positively identified Murat as the abductor - and a statement confirming that fact was of no use to Amaral.   

I don't think so. This episode was totally illegal (a parade is imperative). Inspector Amaral likely was expecting a hint about the RM lead. Mr Smith was his last hope, but nope.

[Redblossom]

No that's not strictly true Red.  I do not believe the McCanns or their friends ever deliberately lied, but I do think that some of their recollections may not have been totally accurate - because few people have perfect recall - especially about things which seemed unimportant at the time, and which they had no idea they were going to be asked to recall at a later date.

If JT had formally identified Robert Murat, the first thing that would have happened was that she would have been immediately taken to the police station - at the speed of light - to make a signed witness statement to that effect.  Because that (i.e. a positive identification of Murat as the abductor)  would have been the most important evidence that Amaral had against him.      That did not happen, she was told she didn't need to sign anything and sent home.   There is no witness statement, let alone a formal one, and if there was it would feature prominently in the AG's Final Statement where he gives the reasons why Murat was made an arguido - and it doesn't.

JT Tanner said that she could not see Murat clearly enough to even recognise him as the the man she'd bumped into half an hour previously - let alone the man she saw abducting Madeleine.  The only reason why she was told she didn't have to go in to sign anything was because she had NOT positively identified Murat as the abductor - and a statement confirming that fact was of no use to Amaral.   

i was not talking about recollections vis a vis kates book but assertions that are clearly lies

As for tanner, unless you want to believe amaral was lying when he said she identified murat by his walk from the surveillance van or unless you want to ignore JT saying in her rogatory statement she didnt think it was, ie with hindsight, but she THOUGHT it was is up to you, btw iirc this surveillance exercise was BEFORE he was made arguido, and sorry but why in her rogatory didnt she say what she said to the police when she was in the van? Bit like her NOT sayong how long  her abductor  mans hair was

[Angelo222]

What does multi- translated mean? The quote afaiaw is from GAs book and was translated by one person, Annaesse, perhaps one of your PT reading friends can compare the original portuguese with the translation. As I posted earlier JTs sketch shows more long than short hair, as does the mccanns own documentary

Red, thanks for posting that sketch which was created by a sketch artist in consultation with Jane Tanner.  It shows without a shred of doubt that the sighting by Tanner and that by the Smiths was of a different man.  There is no way the guy in that sketch could be confused for Gerry McCann.

[Benice]

i was not talking about recollections vis a vis kates book but assertions that are clearly lies

As for tanner, unless you want to believe amaral was lying when he said she identified murat by his walk from the surveillance van or unless you want to ignore JT saying in her rogatory statement she didnt think it was, ie with hindsight, but she THOUGHT it was is up to you, btw iirc this surveillance exercise was BEFORE he was made arguido, and sorry but why in her rogatory didnt she say what she said to the police when she was in the van? Bit like her NOT sayong how long  her abductor  mans hair was

I think Murat was made an arguido one or two days after the failed 'identify parade'

If you believe that JT would NOT have been required to make a statement if she had positively identified Murat as the abductor then that's your prerogative Red.     But it makes no sense to me that Amaral would NOT have want a signed witness statement to wave at Murat during his interrogation.

I repeat, that if such an important witness statement ever existed, it would have been the most predominantly documented evidence mentioned by the AG in his summary of the evidence the PJ had collated against Robert Murat -  but neither a statement nor Jane Tanner are mentioned - and that can only be because no witness statement exists - and that can only be because no positive identification was made.

Here are JT's last words about Murat in her Rog Statement:-

JT -  Again, I don’t really, when I saw Robert MURAT outside his house he looked quite little to me, but then when you see him on the telly he seems quite bit, so I can’t, again, I don’t think the build, the build was right, I don’t”.
4078    “So you don’t feel, in your heart of hearts”.
Reply    “No”.
4078    “You don’t feel it was the same person?”
Reply    “No, I don’t, no”.
 

[Carana]

As for tanner, unless you want to believe amaral was lying when he said she identified murat by his walk from the surveillance van o

Did she ever say that? To whom?